CORAM
SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IDIGBE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
DR. A.A. NWAFOR ORIZU
APPELLANTS
FRANCIS E.A. ANYAGBUNAM
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
PROPERTY LAW / EVIDENCE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff (respondent) claimed from the defendant (appellant) a declaration of title to the piece of land, £500 damages for trespass to the said land by the Defendant, his servants and agents, and their destruction of economic trees and crops on the said land and perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from further trespassing or committing acts of waste or wanton destruction of the said land.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that once an instrument has been duly registered under the relevant provisions of the Land Instruments Registration Law its admissibility is not open to question in proceedings in which the Registrar of Deeds is not a party. The principle omnia praesumuntur legitme facta donoc probetur in contrarium applies.
ISSUES
Not Available
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ADMISSIBILITY OF FACTS AFTER PROCESSION OF PROCEEDING
“It is my view that if a fact did not exist when proceedings are pending or anticipated and such a fact was brought into existence even before litigation was in contemplation the court would hold the view that it was manufactured to harness the case and would exclude it. But if a fact existed before proceedings were pending or anticipated it is not ante litem motem if that existing fact is made admissible evidence by stamping or registration or in any other way treated (sic) to render it in compulsory registration. This is fulfilling the law rather than circumventing it.” Per IDIGBE, JSC
CASES CITED
African Continental Bank v. Attorney-General of Northern Nigeria, (1967) NMLR 231
Oduka & Ors. v. Kasunmu & Ors. (1968) NMLR 28
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Act
The Land Instrument Registration Law